The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/27/89w June 20, 1989 City Council Meeting June 27, 1989 SELECTION OF COUNCIL SPONSORED BALLOT MEASURES FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 1989 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council decide on what Council sponsored ballot initiatives they wish to place on the ballot for the General Municipal Electibn to be -held on November 7, 1989, .and direct the City Attorney to prepare the wording to be presented at the next meeting. The following have previously been suggested as possible ballot measures for November: A. Unleashed dogs on railroad right-of-way. B. Biltmore Site- Task Force/Planning Commission recommendation. Background In addition to any measures the Council may sponser, there is a People's Initiative regarding Open Space/Park on the Biltmore Site that has already qualified; and signatures are being checked on another People's Initiative regarding present uses and unleashed dogs on the railroad right-of-way. Ad&zz ft Kathleen Mi stokke, City Clerk Concur: Kevin B. Norther �Pt, City Manager 0 June 20, 1989 City Council Meeting June 27, 1989 SELECTION OF COUNCIL SPONSORED BALLOT MEASURES FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 1989 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council decide on what Council sponsored ballot initiatives they wish to place on the ballot for the General Municipal Election to be held on November 7, 1989, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the wording to be presented at the next meeting. The following have previously been suggested as possible ballot measures for November: A. Unleashed dogs on railroad right-of-way. B. Biltmore Site- Task Force/Planning Commission recommendation. Background In addition to any measures the Council may sponser, there is a People's Initiative regarding Open Space/Park on the Biltmore Site that has already qualified; and signatures are being checked on another People's Initiative regarding present uses and unleashed dogs on the railroad right-of-way. Kath Wz&okke, City Clerk Concur: Kevin B. NorthcrqRt, City Manager 12a LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & EIN60DEN THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CHARLES S. VOSE 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD ROGER W. SPRINGER LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 CONNIE COONE SANDIFER EDWARD W LEE 12131 250-3043 HERIBERTO DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY July 18, 1989 Timothy H. Ziemann, Esq. Post Office Box 3646 Civic Center Station Manhattan Beach, California 90266 2 01989. wry��ft" ftwo , Re: Tract No. 30986 - 20th & Power Streets Dear Mr. Ziemann: Although you and your client have previously indicated that they may seek a writ of mandate to challenge the recent decision of the Hermosa Beach City Council, the City staff has attempted to work in a cooperative manner to expedite the review process as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. However, your most recent letter and recent contacts by your client with the City appear to be an attempt to make any further proceedings adversarial in nature. In your July 12, 1989 correspondence, you clearly indicate that it is your opinion that the City has infringed upon and violated your client's civil rights. In reviewing your letter, it appears that the statements to support such allegations are, to a great extent, self serving and inaccurate. Your client's current claim for civil rights violation is apparently based upon a failure by the City to file a notice of determination with the Los Angeles County Clerk as required by Public Resources Code Section 21152. As you should be aware, this section is intended to establish a beginning date upon which an action to challenge a negative declaration may be commenced. If you assume that the negative declaration was not appealed back in 1986, there is a 30 day time period in which to commence a legal action if the notice required by Section 21152 is filed with the County Clerk. If such a notice is not filed, the statute of limitations in which to commence such an action is extended to 180 days (Public Resources Code 21167). Since we are discussing something which happened in 1986, I am not sure why the filing of the notice of determination with the county at that time is somehow a violation of your client's civil rights. If you assume that OLIVER, STOEVER. BARR S EINBODEN Timothy H. Ziemann, Esq. July 18, 1989 Page 2. a Negative Declaration was certified by the City Planning Commission in 1986, it seem that this whole issue is moot since the statute of limitations period would have long ago expired whether or not the notice was filed. You have requested that this "negligent" action be "rectified immediately, " however, you did not indicate how you would expect the City to proceed. Furthermore, you indicate that the prior City Attorney, James P. Lough, repeatedly noted on the record that no appeal of the negative declaration had been taken. I have heard your client mention this before, however, we do not have a tape of this meeting and I do not currently have anything of record which indicates that the statements were, in fact, made by Mr. Lough. In addition, there is some inconsistency in this regard since it is my understanding that the City Council reserved the right to require additional environmental review at such time that the Developer is requesting building permits for the construction of the housing. Concerning the appeal of the tentative tract map to the City Council, I am not sure what benefit there is to having an approved Negative Declaration when the underlying project is not approved. While I understand your client's desire to preserve their rights and not acquiesce in an alleged violation of their rights, it is going to be very difficult to proceed with an adequate review and submittal of this matter to the City Council without the cooperation of your clients if additional information is necessary. If your clients desire that the matter not be presented to the City Council until after a court has heard your anticipated writ of mandate action, please advise so that we can terminate the processing of the City's review. If it is you and your client's position that they will not provide the City with additional information if necessary to complete the review, please advise so that we can terminate the proceedings and not waste any more staff time while your client seeks the issuance of permits through the courts. As I have previously stated to you, the City of Hermosa Beach is not reopening the review process of the tentative tract. Your continued statements in this regard are nothing more than a misrepresentation of the process which is being pursued. As you will recall, your clients have submitted new grading plans and drainage information which were significantly different than the information previously filed with the City. It is my understanding that the prior OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & EINBODEN Timothy H. Ziemann, Esq. July 18, 1989 Page 3. information submitted by your client and their consultant was in error and the new plans were required because of recalculations on drainage related matters. The City of Hermosa Beach is proceeding with a limited review of the new information and a determination as to whether or not these revisions will have a significant impact on the environment. Apparently, it is your position that a developer can completely redesign a project, alter drainage direction and impact adjacent property owners without having an environ- mental review. This is not my understanding of the law. With respect to your July 11, 1989 correspondence to the City Clerk, I have not indicated to you at any time that the City was preparing a Section 1094.6 record pursuant to your request of June 22, 1989. As you may recall, I indicated to you that such a record was not possible because the City did not have a transcript or tape of the past City Council meetings and that the City Clerk would provide you with a tape of the most recent City Council meeting. I indicated that you should review this tape along with the written materials submitted to the Council at the June 13, 1989 Council meeting to determine if it is sufficient for your purposes. If you require the preparation or copying of additional information, please advise the City Clerk or me at your earliest convenience. You are further advised that as an attorney who has represented numerous municipalities over the past ten years, I would never advise a City Council to violate a property owner's civil rights as you infer in your July 12, 1989 correspondence. I consider the allegations contained in your correspondence to be frivolous and you are advised that should any legal action be initiated by your clients against the City with respect to these matters we will seek appropriate sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5. - . N OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & EINBODEN Timothy H. Ziemann, Esq. July 18, 1989 Page 4. It is the City's desire to proceed with the review and approval of your client's revised plans through a cooperative and amicable process. Based upon the self serving allegations relating to potential negligence and violation of your client's civil rights, it is apparent that a cooperative effort is unacceptable to you. Very truly yours, CKa4,6�- j V Charles S. Vose of OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & EINBODEN CSV:ilf cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Mike Schuback, Planning Director Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk July 7, 1989 F A X T R A N S M I T T A L M E M O R A N D U M TO: Charles S. Vose, Esq. Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Einboden A Professional Corporation 1000 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90012 FAX NUMBER: 213/482-5336 RE: Tract No. 30986 Hermosa Beach, California PLEASE FIND ATTACHED, A COPY OF: Letter dated June 22, 1989, from Ms. Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, to Mr. Jim A. Marquez (of which I presume you have already received a copy). MESSAGE: As you know, Mr. Jim Marquez and I represent Fabiano Corporation, et al., the developers of the above -referenced Tract. Both of us find Ms. Midstok- ke's letter to be, at best, somewhat confusing. On April 15 1986, the Hermosa Beach Planning Commis- sion granted a Negative Declaration concerning my cli- ents' project. However, Ms. Midstokke's letter im- plies that City Council action was required for such a grant of a Negative Declaration on this project. A review of Hermosa Beach Resolution No. 84-4677 makes it clear that, absent an appeal to the City Council of the grant of a negative declaration by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission's action is final 10 days after the decision by that latter entity. While an appeal was taken of the Planning Commission's grant (also on April 15, 1986) of my client's Tenta- TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANN :..I LAWYER 1334 PARK VIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 I 0EIN' MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 JUL101989 DIRECT MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 3646 Y� �' M9f of CIVIC CENTER STATION e- I. MANHATTAN REACH. CALIFORNIA 90266 TELEPHONE 12131 545-2644 149 FACSIMILE 12131 546-5530 IL: July 7, 1989 F A X T R A N S M I T T A L M E M O R A N D U M TO: Charles S. Vose, Esq. Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Einboden A Professional Corporation 1000 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90012 FAX NUMBER: 213/482-5336 RE: Tract No. 30986 Hermosa Beach, California PLEASE FIND ATTACHED, A COPY OF: Letter dated June 22, 1989, from Ms. Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, to Mr. Jim A. Marquez (of which I presume you have already received a copy). MESSAGE: As you know, Mr. Jim Marquez and I represent Fabiano Corporation, et al., the developers of the above -referenced Tract. Both of us find Ms. Midstok- ke's letter to be, at best, somewhat confusing. On April 15 1986, the Hermosa Beach Planning Commis- sion granted a Negative Declaration concerning my cli- ents' project. However, Ms. Midstokke's letter im- plies that City Council action was required for such a grant of a Negative Declaration on this project. A review of Hermosa Beach Resolution No. 84-4677 makes it clear that, absent an appeal to the City Council of the grant of a negative declaration by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission's action is final 10 days after the decision by that latter entity. While an appeal was taken of the Planning Commission's grant (also on April 15, 1986) of my client's Tenta- Charles S. Vose, Esq. Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Einboden A Professional Corporation July 7, 1989 Page 2 -------- FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM CONTINUES tive Tract Map, no appeal was taken of the Planning Commission's grant of the Negative Declaration. (In- deed, I am advised that at the City Council's subse- quent consideration of the Tentative Tract Map appeal, the Council was repeatedly advised by the then City Attorney that the matter of the Negative Declaration had then already become final, precluding any action by the City Council with respect to the Negative Dec- laration.) Please: (1) Confirm in writing that I am correct in my understanding that no City Council action was required for the Negative Declaration granted by the Planning Commission on April 15, 1986, to be become final and binding; or (2) Provide with a citation of the author- ity which would render my understanding incorrect. And, if I have happened to miss something which would have required City Council action, would you please then also advise me (in writing) as to why, in such a case, the City of Hermosa Beach failed to comply with the requirement of Section 4.0 of Resolution 84-4677 (and similar provisions of CEQA) that: "Within one year of the City's acceptance of an application for a project as complete, the City must complete its environmental re- view of the project, and approve or deny the project." Your prompt attention to the requests set forth above will be sincerely appreciated. Vry tr y yours, 0 -R/32-?7 TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANN THZ:PEM cc: Hermosa Beach City Clerk quauugaedau sXaoM oTTgnd 4u9uugaed9a buTuuETd Aauaoggy AqTD :oo XaaTJ AqTO aXxogspT�f/ `x •s�sanod ATn.zq Asan guaurgaedea buTaueTd aqg qoe uoo noA Z6Z0'8T£ gE g gEgg gsabbns I Marnaa TequauuoaTnua aqq uo suoTgsartb aaggan3 Aue anEq no• 3I „•sgTuuaad buTpTTng 3o aouenssT oq aoTad qoT goes so; pagaTduioo aq TTEgs MaTnaa TEqugwuoaTnua TE T q TuT uq„ :speaa qT 19 abed uo (9) xTs aaqurnu •suoTSTnoad TeaauaD aapun Pue T66b-98 'ON uorgnTosaa 3o Adoo a ST pasoToua •goaCoad srgq uo TTounoD A4T'agq Aq panoadde seM geqg uoTgeaEToaQ 9nr4E6aN ou ST aaaqq •spaooaa aqq buTMaTnaa ui •goaCoad STgq ao3 panoaddu SRM geqg uoT;Eae* anTgE6aN agq 3TOaa o Adoo paT3Tgaao E pagsanbaa osTe nox •uoTSTnTpgns „gaaags aamod„ aqq ao3 9860£ # dEuu anTgequaq 3o uoTsuagxa pue uETd buTpea6 aqq 30 MaTnaa agq 0-4spaebaa uT 6861 •£T aunt uo sagnuTui 6uTgaaw TTaunoo AgTO agq 30 g3eap agq 3o Adoo a ST pasoToua •gsanbea anoA sad :zanbaew •aw aeea uorsTnTpgns gaaags aaMod 9860£ *ON goeay :ad 99206 VD •goeag ueggeguEw OOT agTns •anuany MaTnXaEd 6££T zanbaew •FI uITL' 686T •ZZ aunt 999E-6BZ06 elwoIge0 •gneag esowaH 'aniJp ,(alleq 9L 'Ja)ua0 Dln10 Ira� A 4,q T.► ��,: City of 21ermosa Teach �• Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 902543885 July 3, 1989 Timothy H. Ziemann 1334 Park View Avenue Suite 100 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Re: Tract No. 30986 20th & Power Street Subdivision Dear Mr. Zieman: This letter is in response to your letter dated June 22, 1989. In it you make a reference to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, requesting the complete record of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter. Subsection (g) of the above mentioned statute states: "(g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable." After reviewing the records, it does not appear that the City of Hermosa Beach has adopted this section. If you wish a copy of the audio tape of the portion of the City Council meeting of June 13, 1989, in which the above mentioned item was discussed, I can prepare it after receipt of a fee of $20.00. If you wish a copy of the staff report, the standard copying fee is $1.00 for the first page, and .15 each page thereafter. Please submit a deposit of $20.00, and I will be glad to prepare copies of these items for you. Very truly yours, K thlee� tokke City Clerk cc: City Attorney June 22, 1989 BY HAND DELIVERY Ms. Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Tract No. 30986 20th & Power Street Subdivision Dear Ms. Midstokke: As you know, I represent Fabiano Corporation, et al., the developers of Tract No. 30986. The matter was last be- fore the City Council on Tuesday, June 13, 1989. This letter constitutes a written request (within the meaning of Section 1094.6, California Code of Civil Pro- cedure) for preparation by the City of Hermosa Beach of the complete record of proceedings in the above -refer- enced matter before each of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Please do not hesitate to telephone me should you have any question concerning this letter. ry t yours,, TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANN THZ:PEM cc: Charles S. Vose, Esq. City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach (Via FAX Transmission) TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANNC*UN29 LAWYER1334 PARK VIEW AVENUESUITE 100 MANHATTAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90266DIRECT MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BO% 3646 CIVIC CENTER STATION MANHATTAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 902GG TELEPHONE (213) 545-2644 FACSIMILE (213) 546-5630 June 22, 1989 BY HAND DELIVERY Ms. Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Tract No. 30986 20th & Power Street Subdivision Dear Ms. Midstokke: As you know, I represent Fabiano Corporation, et al., the developers of Tract No. 30986. The matter was last be- fore the City Council on Tuesday, June 13, 1989. This letter constitutes a written request (within the meaning of Section 1094.6, California Code of Civil Pro- cedure) for preparation by the City of Hermosa Beach of the complete record of proceedings in the above -refer- enced matter before each of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Please do not hesitate to telephone me should you have any question concerning this letter. ry t yours,, TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANN THZ:PEM cc: Charles S. Vose, Esq. City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach (Via FAX Transmission) 1 TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANN j LAWYER I 334 PARK VIEW AVENUE SUITE 100 MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 902GG DIRECT MAIL TO: POST OFFICE BOX 3646 CIVIC CENTER STATION MANHATTAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90266 TELEPHONE (213) 545-2644 FACSIMILE (213) 546-5630 July 11, 1989 Ms. Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Tract No. 30986 20th & Power Street Subdivision Dear Ms. Midstokke: OF dU�.'v JUL 121989 OW oMrt a" @ 0oww" BIMtb t I today received your letter to me dated July 3, 1989 -- which was only postal -metered July 6 and postmarked by the United States Postal Service yesterday (July 10). Enclosed please my check payable to the City of Hermosa Beach in the sum of $20.00. Please prepare one certified copy each of the audio tape and staff report described by your letter. You may wish to check further with Mr. Charles S. Vose, City Attorney for the City of Hermosa Beach, as to wheth- er the City has or has not adopted Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During a telephone discussion with him yesterday, Mr. Vose indicated to me that you were in fact preparing the Section 1094.6 record pursuant to my request of June 22. ery tru yours, �.. c- TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANN THZ:PEM Enclosure: As Noted cc: Charles S. Vose, Esq. (w/o enc.) OFFICIAL RECEIPT A=# 88 79189 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA RECEIVED THE SUM 4 VALIDATION 0 of TIMOTHY H. ZIEMANN 18 01 GENERAL ACCOUNT COPY PREPARATION DEPOS I T P. 0. BOX 3646 213-545.2644 MANHATTAN BEACH. CA 90266 1w= .TTIT.Y 1 1 1989__ PAY TOTHE ORDER OF-• TTY OF HFRW)SA RFAC'H $ 20.00***** FOR OLLARS SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK E3 Manhattan Beach 49728 3016 Sepulveda Blvd. Manhattan Beach. CA 90266 10, . . 1--o" ii'OOLBOLiI' I:L220000L,3I:?2Bl,l0?LSSG1i' 0 ►-A4 ►.V.� July 17, 1989 City o f .7iermosaTeaclt-,-) Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Office of the County Recorder 227 North Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90012 FOR RECORDATION: RESOLUTION NO. 89-5255 Vacation of Portion of 21st Street Dear Sirs: Enclosed is the above mentioned document for recordation. All of the conditions which are required in the Resolution have been met to the satisfaction of the City; and the herein mentioned Development Restriction Agreement was recorded on June 2, 1989 as document No. 89-895072. Free recording is being requested on this document as it benefits the City.of Hermosa Beach. Thank you for your prompt attention. Very truly yours, Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk enc: Resolution No. 89-5255 WHEN RECOR HERMOSA 9EA 1315 Valley Hermosa Bea RETURN TO: CITY CLERK ive CA 90254 RESOLUTION NO. 89-5255 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDERING THE 2 VACATION OF A PORTION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET IN SAID CITY. 3 WHEREAS Resolution No. 88-5199, a resolution of intention 4 to vacate a portion of Twenty -First Street, was adopted on 5 November 22, 1988, and; 7 WHEREAS, a public hearing after due notice has been held 8 upon said General Plan Amendment and resolution of intention 9 to vacate the hereinafter -described street, and all persons 10 having had the opportunity to be heard, and the City Council 11 having determined, pursuant to Section 8324 of the Streets and 12 Highways Code, that the hereinafter -described street is 13 unnecessary for present or prospective public use, including 14 use for non -motorized transportation facilities, and; 15 16 WHEREAS, the Staff Environmental Review Committee met on 17 November 3, 1988, to consider the environmental information check 18 list for the subject General Plan Amendment and street vacation; 19 and recommended that a Negative Declaration is appropriate, and; 20 21 WHEREAS, a full and complete title report has been furnished 22 showing underlying fee title of the subject right-of-way to be 23 vested with the adjacent subdivision lots, now therefore; 24 25 BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the City Council of 26 the City of Hermosa Beach, California, as follows: 27 28 (FREE RECORDING IS REQUESTED - 1 PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE 527383 benefits City - and is official business of the City of Hermosa Beach, California.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 SECTION 1. That the removal of the portion of Twenty -First Street, hereinafter described, from the circulation plan, and the proposed vacation thereof would result in no significant environmental impact; and a Negative Declaration is hereby approved. SECTION 2. That the General Plan is hereby amended as follows: A. The hereinafter described portion of Twenty -First Street is deleted from the circulation element of the General Plan. B. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is amended to designate said portion of Twenty -First Street as Low Density Residential. SECTION 3. That the public interest and convenience require the vacation of that certain portion of Twenty -First Street in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, more particularly described as follows, and the same is HEREBY VACATED AND ABANDONED: A portion of Twenty -First Street shown as `Portland Street' on that certain map entitled Tract No. 1868 recorded in Book 26 at page 21, Los Angeles County Records, being a 40 foot wide strip of land more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 34 of said Tract 1868; thence South 220 00' East 40.52 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 6 of said tract 1868, thence - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 North 770 10' 30" East 101.13 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 240 30' 30" West 40.85 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 34, thence South 770 10' 30" West 99.31 feet to the Point of Beginning. SECTION 4 . That said vacation and abandonment is conditioned upon the following: A. That the applicant for said vacation, (being the owner of Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 1868); execute a Development Restriction Agreement limiting the size and scope of development upon said Lots 6, 7, and 8 as approved by the City Council of The City of Hermosa Beach; and that said Development Restriction Agreement is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County prior to recordation of this resolution. B. That all costs, including title search, title guarantee, and all City costs involved with the vacation are borne by the applicant. SECTION 5. In effecting this order and determination, the City Council has made the following findings: A. That said portion of Twenty -First Street is unnecessary for present or prospective public use. - 3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. That the vacation and abandonment of said portion of Twenty -First Street is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach, as herein amended. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall enter the same in the boo. of original resolutions of said City, shall make a minute record of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted, shall cause a certified copy thereof attested by the City Clerk under the seal of said City, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, State of California, after recordation of the hereinbefo referenced Development Restriction Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 11th day of April 198, PRESIDENT of the City Council and the MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: - 4 - FAS 0 0.16WA D7cF*M1Cim WQ:1uF 1"0WW.1 V V hr V IYH / c ML.F�IV V VV Lt U�.i IVI CI V 1 State of CVaL ! N 1 f} 1 SS. County of �� A -h no lPv j OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE p NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA • LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ay Commission Explres SEPT. 2!-_1992 NO. 20[ On this the /it day of / rf ii r 19 �y, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared I U); /); /}ms , met yj/- 01r NPrmv&a- personally known to me LSP4 C-9— proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the erson(s) who executed the within instrument as �z'sida>�of e�14YCCy��dronbehalfofthecorporationtherein named, and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 7120122 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 23012 Venlum Blvd. • P.O. Box 4625 • WoodlarM Hills. CA 91364